جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « informed consent » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Genes are implicated in the manifestation of not only physical traits but also behaviours, moods and mental illnesses. Genetic modification enables the alteration of an individual's characteristics. In addition, some diseases have a genetic origin that can be treated using this method.
Genetic engineering is classified into four principal categories: somatic gene therapy, somatic genetic enhancement, germline gene therapy, and germline genetic enhancement. The genetic alterations achieved through somatic gene therapy are confined to the individual undergoing the procedure and are not inherited by subsequent generations. In contrast, the consequences of germline gene therapy persist across multiple generations.
The ethical and legal challenges associated with human genetic modification are manifold, with informed consent being a particularly salient issue, particularly in the context of genetic modification of germ cells.
Genes are implicated in the manifestation of not only physical traits but also behaviours, moods and mental illnesses. Genetic modification enables the alteration of an individual's characteristics. In addition, some diseases have a genetic origin that can be treated using this method.
In this study, we employed an analytical-descriptive methodology to examine this challenge and the perspectives that have been put forth in relation to it.
Modern natural law posits reason as the foundation for legal and moral norms, leading to the term "rationalism." The objective of modern natural law or rationalism is to safeguard individual rights. The individual is regarded as the ultimate end, and the principles of individual freedom and the sovereignty of the will are considered to be of paramount importance. This perspective emphasises the importance of undertaking rational tasks in a manner that is guided by benevolent intentions, and posits that the realisation of perfection is contingent upon this approach. The physical and mental faculties serve as the instruments and preliminary steps in the accomplishment of these tasks. From the perspective of rationalism and Kant's thought, people have a moral obligation to pursue their own perfection and that of others. One proposed method for fulfilling this obligation is through genetic modification. However, several principles have been proposed in this thought which are considered to be the most important rational reasons for opposing human genetic modification. Genes are implicated in the manifestation of not only physical traits but also behaviours, moods and mental illnesses. Genetic modification enables the alteration of an individual's characteristics. In addition, some diseases have a genetic origin that can be treated using this method.
In this study, we employed an analytical-descriptive methodology to examine this challenge and the perspectives that have been put forth in relation to it.
The ethical and legal challenges associated with human genetic modification are particularly pertinent in the context of informed consent, particularly in relation to genetic modifications on germ cells.
The question thus arises as to whether an individual is entitled to make a decision to undergo genetic modification with a view to influencing the traits and characteristics of subsequent generations and thereby determining their future and life prospects in a positive or negative manner. This raises the question of whether the principle of informed consent presents an obstacle to human genetic modification. Alternatively, can it be accepted by reference to other rational principles of Kant's moral philosophy, including deontology and the concept of the human being as an end in themselves? What are the human duty and role in perfecting themselves and others on this basis? Is proxy consent accepted by Kant's rational view and can it replace the consent of the patient or a person who is created in the future or not? Given that the majority of objections to human genetic modification have a Kantian basis, is such an approach correct and complete? If this view is not correct, can a view in favour of genetic modification be inferred from Kant's thought?
The initial stage of the discussion centred on an examination of the fundamental principles, concepts and categories of informed consent. This was followed by an investigation into the constituent elements of the process of informed consent and the circumstances under which the principle of informed consent can be applied. In addition, the potential implications of this principle for the field of genetic modification were considered. Finally, this study analyses the effect of Kantian dutyism and the concept of the human being as an end in itself on genetic modification.
It seems that genetic modification does not necessarily mean violating the rights of individuals, and on the other hand, embryos or even germ cells do not have free will, which can be seen as an obstacle to genetic modification. Moreover, human beings have a duty to the happiness of others, and parents have a duty to their children. Although this duty is in conflict with the duty to respect individual autonomy and informed consent, the way out of the conflict is to emphasise the results orientation and to pay attention to the end of the human being, because there is no basis for preferring one of these two tasks over the other, and therefore Kant's thought is blocked in this respect. In this way, the treatment of diseases of genetic origin and the provision of a better life through the development of the individual's traits is the cause and introduction to other rational tasks, in other words, the positive results of genetic modification are preferable to the obstacle of lack of conscious consent. Acceptance of genetic modification and exit will result from this blockage and conflict, and therefore the duty to fulfil the duties of the parents is superior to the duty to respect the individual autonomy of the foetus, and in the meantime there is a difference in the therapeutic goal or the strengthening goal in germline methods or somatic in children will not be incompetent. Finally, according to Kant's view of duty, genetic modification of human embryos can be accepted.

The most important and perhaps the main concern of human rights has been formed with the emergence of new capabilities in the scientific and technological fields of biology. This has caused opposition to human simulation in jurisprudence and law. The purpose of this article is to examine the reasons for banning human cloning from the point of view of jurisprudence and criminal law. The current article is a descriptive analysis and has investigated the mentioned topic using the library method. The findings indicate that interference in God's creation, disintegration of the family system, ambiguity in kinship relations and disruption of the kinship status of cloned people are the most important jurisprudential reasons for banning human cloning. The guarantee of individual rights and freedoms of citizens based on bioethics is shown in the framework of principles that are called “bioethics principles”. These are the principles and goals that criminal law pursues in bioethics. The principle of harm, or in other words, the principle of harm, is one of the prominent principles of bioethics, which has received the most attention and discussion in the field of criminal law, and is one of the fundamental foundations of criminal law intervention. The other face of this principle appears in the field of criminal law in the form of “obligation to do no harm” and emphasizes the absence of harm.

The basic pillar of therapeutic simulation is the cells that are provided to scientists to combine and create a simulated embryo. These cells are not capable of planting in the laboratory environment but must be provided by the applicant to the researchers to produce simulated embryo for extracting stem cells. One of the challenges of using the therapeutic simulation process is how scientists reach the above base cells. It also raises the necessity of extracting stem cells from the resulting embryo, the issue of the owners of the decision -making authority towards the embryo. Another challenge is the conscious consent of the cell owners and the role of satisfaction in the owners of the embryo. The evaluation in the present article indicates that non -identification or restriction of decision -making authority to their cell owners and encloses the transfer of basic cells to scientists based on purely kind -hearted donation, benefiting from this modern technology and its valuable achievements with limitations. It makes a lot. In contrast, recognizing cell owners' decision -making authority over those cells and accepting monetary mechanisms and predicting the possibility of paying for cell owners while considering the necessity of their consent in the transfer process, not only increases the motivations of cell donation to simulate therapy. It will also promote the increasing development of scientific processes related to therapeutic simulation, which will be the source of the discovery of the treatment of many illnesses.

Duty to inform is part of lawyer’s obligations required by contract and law. The failure of such duty is considered as professional negligence and so resulted in lawyer’s civil responsibility. The purpose of this paper is to comparative study of lawyer’s duty to inform his/her client and a third party, also to explore the related cases and liability by searching differences and discovering similarities between Iranian and American legal systems and to reveal the importance of issue so it would be useful to legislature for establishing effective legal rules or modifying the law. In this article, the necessity of pre-contract disclosure and lawyer's duty to consistently keep client informed during client-lawyer relationship is achieved through comparative scrutiny of the two legal systems by descriptive analytical approach, with focus in informed consent in American law and client interest in Iranian law. A lawyer duty to inform includes any information affect client consent and decision making regarding the lawyer itself or legal representation. Despite conflict between the duty to warn a third person and the duty of confidentiality, disclosure appears necessary in cases another person is in significant danger posed by client.

According to the governing principles of medical law, the doctor's intervention in the patient's treatment requires the informed consent of the patient. This consent is achieved when the patient has expressed her/his consent by having sufficient information about the treatment process and its risks. In this study, the question related to the issue that what risks the doctor should inform the patient is answered by a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach in American and French law. Despite the different approaches, the two main criteria of "importance of risk" and "probability of risk" are the most fundamental influencing factors in determining the scope of the doctor's commitment in informing about the risks of treatment. In French law, based on the types of risk, "serious" and "common" risks are recognized as the subject of the doctor's obligation to inform, but in American law, based on the approach founded on the patient's perspective and with objective criterion, the doctor is obliged to inform about the risks that are typically important and basic from the patient's point of view, according to the "severity of the risk" and the "percentage of its occurrence". The new approach of English law is also an integrated approach based on "active interaction between doctor and patient" which, due to attention to the specific characteristics and conditions of the patient under treatment, brings maximum efficiency to realize informed consent. The same approach is also suggested in Iran law, which means that before treatment, the doctor, by examining the patient's condition, mood and views, in an active interaction, recognize important risks from the patient's point of view, and in cases where access to the patient's point of view, it was not possible to use the criterion of the reasonable patient.

Incontrovertibly each person’s body has an undeniable role in his shaping personality. Nowadays and based on scientific efforts, we know sex and accordingly, gender, as a spectrum in inter bodily experience. Over the long years intersex status was considered a “disorder”, but recently “different” experience of the two feminine and masculine sexual templates replaced the prevailing perception of intersex status. Concurrently with these scientific efforts, the process of legal recognition of intersex persons as conscious, dignified and autonomous persons has started; the process which is unknown in many countries.Legal recognition is an action that during the years, encapsulates the debate on the agent of recognition on the one hand and subject of legal recognition, intersex persons, on the other hand. Birth of positive and negative legal recognition is the result of this action and reaction. In negative legal recognition, only the two feminine and masculine sexual patterns are recognized and intersex persons have to undertake the burden of irreparable and dangerous surgical shaping to join one of the two, without informed consent and necessity of treatment. But in positive legal recognition, existence of component elements such as right to self-determination, right to bodily integrity and right to have infant genitalia, creates a right-based model of legal recognition of intersex persons; a model that informed consent and necessity of treatment comprise its limitations to guarantee mentioned rights and actualize the fundamental idea of positive legal recognition, i.e. the equity between intersex and male or female humane.

With the development of biomedical research, we are observing the emergence of new issues and, consequently, new legal challenges that it is necessary to study with legal and jurisprudential standards. A Clinical Trial is a kind of experimental research and the most valid type of research to prove the cause and effect relationship between therapeutic intervention and treatment. These types of research have wide jurisprudential and legal dimensions. Informed consent is the process by which a participant or their legal representative sees and understands information about the trial and agrees with it. Ambiguity in the legal status of the informed consent of the person participating in Clinical Trials is a challenge that requires attention and accuracy. The research method of this article is descriptive-analytical, and the method of collecting information is based on the library method. The study findings show that by comparing the consent of Clinical Trials (different from medical consent) with legal bases, it is clear that the specific status of the consent and its conditions and characteristics are such that it should be studied in the framework of indefinite contracts. The contract is generally subject to the general rules of the contract and is specifically subject to other relevant provisions in this field, including the "Ethical Guidelines for Clinical Trials". By examining the jurisprudential arguments and legal rules, it can be said that concluding Clinical Trial contracts to test a new method of treatment or medicine on the physical integrity of the volunteers is permissible even if there is minor or severe damage under particular conditions. Because often, these contracts are concluded in the direction of something rational and expedient interest

The use of images taken by the physician during the treatment and care of the patient can endanger the patient's privacy and image rights and lead to the disclosure of the patient's identity. The right to confidentiality of the patient's image therapy in the legal sphere is included in the category of the right to personality and in the realm of Islamic law is in the category of the sin against mankind. On the other hand, these images provide a unique opportunity for physicians in education and research. Given that based on the rights of persons to their image, no one can take a photo or video without the consent of a person, today, some domestic legal systems have provided the conditions for proper use of patient images to protect patients' rights and prevent possible disputes between physician and patient. Non-disclosure of patient identity, informed consent, and safe maintenance are the three main conditions in using patient images. Due to the necessity of finding the right to privacy of patient medical images, the present study, through a descriptive-analytic method, aims to achieve the principles and criteria of protection of this right for legislation in Iran by reviewing and analyzing the results of scientific theories and legal approaches of international centers such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the Canadian Medical Protective Association has considered and western countries such as Australia, England, and Canada.